The Pentagon is taking a major step forward in modernizing how it addresses cybersecurity risks.
Defense Department officials have emphasized the need to move beyond “legacy shortcomings” to deliver technology to warfighters more rapidly. In September, DoD announced a new cybersecurity risk management construct to address those challenges.
“The previous Risk Management Framework was overly reliant on static checklists and manual processes that failed to account for operational needs and cyber survivability requirements,” DoD wrote at the time. “These limitations left defense systems vulnerable to sophisticated adversaries and slowed the delivery of secure capabilities to the field.”
Weeding through legacy manual processes
The legacy of manual processes has built up over decades. Jason Venner, a solutions sales director at Diligent, said agencies have traditionally relied on people and paperwork to ensure compliance.
“It’s no one’s fault,” Venner said during Federal News Network’s Risk & Compliance Exchange 2025. “It just sort of evolved that way, and now it’s time to stop and reassess where we’re at. I think the administration is doing a pretty good job in looking at all the different regs that they’re promulgating and revising them.”
Venner said IT leaders are interested in ways to help streamline the governance, risk and compliance process while ensuring security.
“Software should help make my life easier,” he said. “If I’m a CIO or a CISO, it should help my make my life easier, and not just for doing security scans or vulnerability scans, but actually doing IT governance, risk and compliance.”
Katie Arrington, who is performing the duties of the DoD chief information officer, has talked about the need to “blow up” the current RMF. The department moved to the framework in 2018 when it transitioned away from the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP).
“I remember when we were going from DIACAP to RMF, I wanted to pull my hair out,” Arrington said earlier this year. “It’s still paper. Who reads it? What we do is a program protection plan. We write it, we put it inside the program. We say, ‘This is what we’ll be looking to protect the program.’ We put it in a file, and we don’t look at it for three years. We have to get away from paperwork. We have to get away from the way we’ve done business to the way we need to do business, and it’s going to be painful, and there are going to be a lot of things that we do, and mistakes will be made. I really hope that industry doesn’t do what industry tends to do, [which] is want to sue the federal government instead of working with us to fix the problems. I would really love that.”
Evolving risk management through better automation, analytics
DoD’s new risk management construct includes a five-phase lifecycle and then core principles, including automation, continuous monitoring and DevSecOps.
Arrington talked about the future vision for cyber risk management within DoD earlier this year.
“I’m going to ask you, if you’re a software provider, to provide me your software bill of materials in both your sandbox and production, along with a third-party SBOM. You’re going to populate those artifacts into our Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service,” she said. “I will have AI tools on the back end to review the data instead of waiting for a human and if all of it passes the right requirements, provisional authority to operate.”
Venner said the use of automation and AI rest on a foundation of data analytics. He argued the successful use of AI for risk management will require purpose-built models.
“Can you identify, suggest, benchmark things for me and then identify controls to mitigate these risks, and then let me know what data I need to monitor to ensure those controls are working. That’s where AI can really accelerate the conversation,” Venner said.
On Wednesday, Micron Technology announced it will exit the consumer RAM business in 2026, ending 29 years of selling RAM and SSDs to PC builders and enthusiasts under the Crucial brand. The company cited heavy demand from AI data centers as the reason for abandoning its consumer brand, a move that will remove one of the most recognizable names in the do-it-yourself PC upgrade market.
“The AI-driven growth in the data center has led to a surge in demand for memory and storage,” Sumit Sadana, EVP and chief business officer at Micron Technology, said in a statement. “Micron has made the difficult decision to exit the Crucial consumer business in order to improve supply and support for our larger, strategic customers in faster-growing segments.”
Micron said it will continue shipping Crucial consumer products through the end of its fiscal second quarter in February 2026 and will honor warranties on existing products. The company will continue selling Micron-branded enterprise products to commercial customers and plans to redeploy affected employees to other positions within the company.
Cloud SLAs often fall short of enterprise needs. Learn how CISOs can assess, mitigate and manage SLA gaps using risk frameworks, compensating controls and multi-provider strategies.
The President of Poland has vetoed a controversial bill that aimed to set strict rules on the crypto assets market, following multiple concerns of a startup exodus, “overregulation” of the sector, and stifling market innovation.
Poland’s President Vetoes Divisive Crypto Bill
On Monday, Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki refused to sign a crypto market legislation over concerns that it could pose a real threat to the freedoms of Poles, the stability of the state, and market innovation.
In an official statement, the president’s office announced Nawrocki’s decision to veto the Crypto-Asset Market Act, introduced in June, to prevent “overregulation” and abuse of the “legal mess” proposed by the Polish government.
As reported by Bitcoinist, Poland’s crypto community previously raised concerns about the legislation in September, noting that the bill exceeded the European Union (EU)’s minimum regulatory requirements and could drive small businesses and startups abroad.
Notably, the bill’s text required all Crypto Asset Service Providers to obtain a license from the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) to operate in the market. It also proposed heavy fines and potential prison time for participants who breached the law.
Rafal Leśkiewicz, Press Secretary of the President, listed on X three main reasons for Nawrocki’s decision to reject the bill. He asserted that the legislation risks power abuse and overreach, as some provisions allow the government to shut down websites of companies offering crypto services “with a single click.”
“This is unacceptable. Most European Union countries use a simple list of warnings that protects consumers without blocking entire websites,” he noted.
In addition, the regulation’s size and lack of transparency risked overregulation, noting that countries like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary implemented concise and comprehensive frameworks. Meanwhile, Poland’s text surpasses the one-hundred-page mark.
He argued that “Overregulation is a straight path to driving companies abroad—to the Czech Republic, Lithuania, or Malta—instead of creating conditions for them to earn money and pay taxes in Poland.”
Lastly, the Press Secretary listed the amount of supervisory fees as an issue, affirming that the government set them at a level that would have prevented small businesses and startups from developing, favoring foreign corporations and banks. To him, “this is a reversal of logic, killing the competitive market and posing a serious threat to innovation.”
Community Praises The ‘Necessary Decision’
Leśkiewicz emphasized that regulation is necessary, but added that it must oversee the market in a way that’s “reasonable, proportionate, and safe” for users, rather than overreaching and potentially harming the Polish economy.
“The government had two years to prepare a bill in line with the European MiCA regulation on the crypto-asset market in the European Union. Instead, it produced a legal mess that hurts Poles and Polish companies,” he asserted. “The decision to veto was necessary and was made responsibly. The president will defend the economic security of Poles.”
Polish economist Krzysztof Piech praised the president’s decision to veto the crypto bill, affirming that it was “a very bad law” that “violated the Polish Constitution and was contrary to the EU regulation it was supposed to implement in Poland.”
Piech also refuted claims that Poland will become a “paradise” for criminals and fraudsters, who will “be grateful” to President Nawrocki for “a crypto market without state supervision.”
The economist asserted that the government’s version of the bill “did not provide for any assistance to victims of fraudsters,” adding that, “as of July 1, 2026, the entire Polish market will be regulated and supervised — even without any legislation. After all, we are in the EU.”
The Swiss government has announced a delay in its plans to implement a major crypto law. This comes as governments worldwide face difficulty in achieving uniform crypto tax regulations, even as the crypto industry heats up with wider adoption.
Swiss Government Delays Implementation Of Popular Crypto Law
In a press release, the Swiss Federal Council announced that the new Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) will be enshrined into law from January 2026, but will not be implemented until 2027 at the earliest. The National Council’s Economic Affairs and Taxation Committee (ETAC) earlier this month suspended deliberations on the partner states with which Switzerland intends to exchange data under the crypto law, which prompted this decision.
The Federal Council also determined that the provisions on crypto assets contained in the Federal Act on the Automatic Exchange of Information in Tax Matters (AEOIA) and AEOI Ordinance shall not apply next year. Meanwhile, the government approved amendments to the Automatic Exchange of Information in Tax Matters (AEOI Ordinance).
The release noted that the crypto law contains implementing provisions on amending the Federal Act on the AEOIA. As part of the amendments, the AEOI Ordinance now includes the crypto service providers’ duty to report, duty to conduct due diligence, and duty to register. It also specifies their nexus to Switzerland.
Furthermore, under the crypto law, crypto service providers such as exchanges will now directly apply to associations and foundations, and their accounts will be subject to the law. However, they are excluded from the AEOI if they meet certain conditions under the revised ordinance. Lastly, the law also contains transitional provisions that make it easier for the affected parties to implement the amended CRS and the CARF.
The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) will enable the automatic exchange of tax information on crypto transactions between countries. Other countries, including the U.S. and the U.K., are working to implement this global standard of crypto tax reporting into their legal frameworks.
U.K. Also Moves To Implement CARF
In a release, the U.K. government announced that it is implementing the CARF for the first international data exchanges in 2027. The government noted that the CARF requires U.K. reporting crypto asset service providers (RCASPs) to collect relevant tax information and undertake due diligence in relation to their users on an annual basis.
These U.K. RCASPs will also be required to collect information concerning U.K. resident customers. This means that the country’s tax authority, HMRC, will have CARF data on all taxpayers using a U.K.-based RCASP. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the U.S. is also planning to implement the crypto law. Bitcoinist recently reported that the Treasury Department has dispatched the CARF regulations to the White House for review.
The Future of Governance: Decentralized Vs AI Frameworks
Technological advancements are reshaping how organizations, governments, and communities approach decision-making and ensure accountability. Traditional hierarchical governance models are being challenged by two cutting-edge paradigms: decentralized governance and AI-driven governance frameworks. Both approaches promise to streamline decision-making, improve transparency, and optimize resource allocation, yet they achieve these objectives in fundamentally different ways.
Decentralized governance, popularized by blockchain and Web3 communities, distributes authority among multiple stakeholders, reducing the risks of centralization and corruption. AI governance frameworks, on the other hand, leverage artificial intelligence to automate decision-making, analyze large volumes of data, and provide predictive insights.
This article explores the differences, advantages, limitations, and future implications of these governance models, providing a comprehensive view for enterprises, policymakers, and technologists aiming to design efficient, ethical, and adaptive governance systems.
1. Exploring Decentralized Governance
1.1 Definition and Principles Decentralized governance refers to a system in which decision-making authority is distributed across multiple actors rather than concentrated in a central body. This framework is widely used in blockchain networks, DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations), and peer-to-peer platforms. Key principles include:
Transparency: All actions and decisions are recorded on public ledgers.
Consensus: Decisions require approval from a majority or quorum of stakeholders.
Inclusivity: All token holders or members can participate in governance processes.
Autonomy: Organizations operate independently of a central authority, relying on rules coded in smart contracts.
1.2 Mechanisms of Decentralized Governance The operational mechanics of decentralized governance often rely on blockchain technology and cryptographic protocols. Examples include:
Voting Systems: Stakeholders vote on proposals, protocol changes, or funding allocations.
Smart Contracts: Self-executing contracts enforce rules automatically, minimizing human bias.
Token-based Governance: Tokens represent voting power, incentivizing active participation and aligning stakeholder interests.
1.3 Advantages of Decentralized Governance Decentralized governance offers several strategic benefits:
Transparency and Trust: Open ledgers reduce opportunities for corruption or opaque decision-making.
Resilience: Distributed authority reduces single points of failure.
Community-driven: Stakeholders have a direct voice in organizational decisions.
Innovation-friendly: Encourages experimentation and adaptation within ecosystems.
1.4 Limitations and Challenges Despite its promise, decentralized governance faces challenges:
Scalability: Decision-making can be slow when large numbers of stakeholders are involved.
Coordination Issues: Achieving consensus across diverse participants is complex.
Security Risks: Vulnerabilities in smart contracts or voting protocols can be exploited.
Inequality: Token-based voting may favor early adopters or large stakeholders.
2. Understanding AI-Driven Governance Frameworks
2.1 Definition and Principles AI governance frameworks utilize artificial intelligence systems to support, enhance, or automate decision-making processes. These systems analyze large datasets, identify patterns, and provide recommendations that inform policy, strategy, or operational decisions. Core principles include:
Automation: Reduces manual intervention in repetitive decision-making tasks.
Data-driven Insights: AI leverages historical and real-time data for predictive and prescriptive decisions.
Scalability: Can handle complex decisions at a pace unachievable by humans.
Adaptability: Machine learning algorithms can improve over time based on new information.
2.2 Mechanisms of AI Governance AI governance frameworks often combine advanced technologies, including:
Natural Language Processing (NLP): Analyzes textual data for sentiment, compliance, or policy interpretation.
Decision Support Systems: Provide insights and actionable recommendations to human leaders.
Autonomous Agents: Execute predefined governance tasks without human oversight, often in real-time.
2.3 Advantages of AI Governance AI-driven governance can transform organizations and governments in multiple ways:
Speed and Efficiency: Decisions can be made faster using predictive models and automation.
Accuracy: Reduces human error by analyzing vast datasets objectively.
Optimization: Helps allocate resources efficiently and predict future trends.
Consistency: Standardizes decision-making processes across departments or regions.
2.4 Limitations and Challenges AI governance is not without risks:
Ethical Concerns: Bias in AI algorithms can lead to unfair outcomes.
Transparency: Complex models may be difficult to audit or explain.
Dependence on Data Quality: Poor or incomplete data can compromise decisions.
Loss of Human Oversight: Over-reliance on AI may reduce accountability.
3. Decentralized Vs AI Governance: Key Differences
Decentralized governance and AI governance frameworks represent two distinct approaches to decision-making, each with its own philosophy, mechanisms, and outcomes.
Decision Authority: In decentralized governance, authority is distributed among stakeholders, giving multiple participants a voice in decisions. AI governance, in contrast, relies on machine-driven analysis and automation, where decisions are informed or executed by algorithms rather than humans.
Transparency and Accountability: Decentralized systems are highly transparent because all decisions and actions are recorded on public ledgers, which can be audited by participants. AI governance frameworks may face challenges in transparency, especially when algorithms are complex and difficult to interpret, requiring specialized tools to ensure accountability.
Speed and Efficiency: Decentralized governance often involves consensus among many stakeholders, which can slow decision-making. AI governance excels in speed and efficiency, processing large datasets and delivering recommendations or actions almost instantly.
Adaptability: AI frameworks are highly adaptable, continuously learning from new data to improve decision quality over time. Decentralized governance is slower to adapt, as changes often require stakeholder approval and collective agreement.
Bias and Fairness: While decentralized governance is influenced by human decision-makers, potentially introducing subjective bias, AI governance can also inherit biases embedded in the training data or algorithms. Continuous auditing is essential to mitigate these risks.
Scalability: AI governance frameworks handle complex, large-scale operations more effectively, whereas decentralized governance can face scalability challenges as the number of participants increases.
By understanding these key differences, organizations can evaluate which framework — or combination of both — best suits their goals, whether it’s maximizing transparency, efficiency, adaptability, or inclusivity.
4. Use Cases of Decentralized Governance
Blockchain Networks: Governance protocols for cryptocurrency upgrades or forks.
DAOs: Community-driven funding decisions or project management.
Supply Chain Management: Shared decision-making across multiple partners to ensure transparency.
Public Policy & Civic Engagement: Voting systems leveraging blockchain for secure citizen participation.
5. Use Cases of AI Governance
Financial Institutions: Credit scoring, risk assessment, fraud detection using AI predictions.
Smart Cities: Automated traffic control, energy optimization, or emergency management.
Corporate Strategy: AI-assisted investment decisions, resource planning, or HR analytics.
Healthcare: Policy compliance, patient care optimization, and predictive diagnostics.
6. Synergy Between Decentralized and AI Governance
Rather than competing, decentralized and AI governance frameworks can complement each other:
AI in DAOs: AI agents can automate voting processes, proposal evaluation, and predictive analytics for decentralized communities.
Blockchain for AI Accountability: Distributed ledgers can log AI decisions for transparency and auditability.
Hybrid Models: Combine human oversight, AI recommendations, and decentralized consensus for adaptive, ethical governance.
7. Challenges and Considerations for the Future
Interoperability: Combining decentralized protocols and AI systems requires standardization.
Ethics and Accountability: Ensuring decisions are fair, transparent, and auditable remains a top priority.
Regulatory Compliance: Governments may impose frameworks to ensure AI decisions and decentralized voting comply with laws.
Security Risks: Smart contracts and AI algorithms both face vulnerabilities that require robust defense mechanisms.
Conclusion
The future of governance is likely to be a hybrid ecosystem where decentralized models provide transparency, resilience, and stakeholder participation, while AI frameworks offer speed, scalability, and data-driven insights. Enterprises, governments, and communities that successfully integrate both approaches can create governance systems that are transparent, efficient, adaptive, and accountable.
Decentralized governance ensures that authority is distributed and decisions are community-driven, reducing the risk of centralization. AI governance frameworks empower organizations to process complex datasets, automate decision-making, and optimize operational efficiency. By combining the strengths of both, the next generation of governance can achieve a balance between human oversight, collective intelligence, and machine efficiency, paving the way for smarter, more inclusive, and future-ready systems.
The AI Governance Tightrope: Enabling Innovation Without Compromising Security Cybersecurity leaders are facing a critical inflection point. The rapid emergence of artificial intelligence technologies presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant...
In today’s hyper-connected era, social media isn’t just a pastime; it’s how we network, shape our identities, and sometimes even boost sales. Out of all the platforms, Instagram consistently ranks at the top. Every minute, its members flood the feed with selfies, stories, and DMs, providing a treasure trove of digital identities for anyone with the right set of skills. What often goes unnoticed is that this wealth of information is an invitation for cyber attackers. The label “instahacking” has emerged to describe the unauthorized effort to crack an Instagram account. While the term usually conjures images of basement-dwelling hackers, the truth is that anyone can benefit from uncovering the tactics behind these break-ins to shore up their account security.
In this article, we break down the main tactics behind instahacking, touch upon some Linux-based tools that security pros utilize, and furnish everyday users with actionable, straightforward ways to tighten their defenses.
Defining Instahacking
In simple terms, instahacking means accessing an Instagram account in violation of the owner’s consent. The motivations of the perpetrator vary: some want to harvest private DMs, others swap out profile pictures to impersonate the victim, and a few may even resort to ransom demands for account restoration. Regardless of the motive, the behavior is both illegal and unethical and has attracted increasing media attention as reported cases multiply.
Yet the same knowledge can be turned to good. Cybersecurity experts and ethical hackers investigate Instagram hacking techniques not to misuse them, but to fortify the platform and help users stay safe.
Common InstaHacking Techniques
Familiarity with the tactics hackers use helps us build defenses:
Phishing
Phishing seeks to steer victims to a counterfeit Instagram login page. The fake site, almost identical to the real one, captures the username and password as the user logs in. Links to such pages often arrive through deceptive emails, direct messages, or dubious ads.
Brute Force
Brute-force attacks rely on automated tools that try countless password combinations until one succeeds. Weak or commonly used passwords risk a successful guess in minutes.
Keylogging
A keylogger records every keystroke on an infected device. These covert programs can steal login information, screenshots, and sensitive text without alerting the user.
Credential Leaks
Mass theft of password databases from third-party platforms puts users at risk if they re-use passwords. When a site suffers a leak, any identical Instagram password lets an attacker in seamlessly.
Social Engineering
Social engineering sidesteps technical vulnerabilities, manipulating users into revealing information with convincing impersonations, urgency, or other psychological pressures.
Threat actors increasingly impersonate Instagram support or leverage leaked personal data to manipulate users into surrendering credentials.
Linux Tools for Security Testing
Cybersecurity practitioners value Linux for its transparency and breadth of free, robust security-testing tools. Although adversaries sometimes weaponize them, the white-hat community uses the same arsenal to spot vulnerabilities and reinforce defenses. Here are core resources routinely deployed in engagement.
Hydra
This parallelized brute-force client tests password options against diverse services in one operation. Legitimate testers leverage Hydra to measure and strengthen user credential strength across their apps.
John the Ripper
They employ a preferred, high-performance password-hashing interpreter to measure against shadow or equivalent password databases. Audit teams examine the resulting estimates to ensure internal password-policy compliance and organizational awareness.
Wireshark
The real-time, cross-platform packet sniffer saturates a PCAP to reveal live traffic patterns and red-flag anomalous, potentially unwanted data ingress and egress. Security analysts routinely observe immediate indicators of phishing, credential harvesting, or unauthorized exfiltration.
Metasploit Framework
The modular, open-source exploitation environment lets testers confirm, protect, and prioritize vulnerabilities through applicable, explicit delay modules against guaranteed scope systems. Distinct, guided, real-time audits furnish development teams a consolidation of severity, paste, and actionable mitigation.
Deployed in alignment to validated scope and corporate policy, Linux-supported tools furnish crucial visibility and resiliency against evolving credential- and impersonation-based attacks.
How to Keep Your Instagram Account Safe from Unwanted Access
As cybercriminals constantly refine their methods, there are practical ways you can tighten security on your Instagram profile:
Choose Passwords Wisely: Combine uppercase, lowercase, numbers, and symbols, and aim for at least 12 random characters, steering clear of obvious phrases.
Turn on Two-Factor Authentication: This forces you to verify your identity with a temporary code each time you log on from a new device.
Stay Away from Fishy Links: Links promising free followers, giveaways, or viewer stats are bait—clicking them can hand over your credentials.
Refresh Your Password Periodically: Change it every 60 to 90 days, even if you suspect no breach—but even a new password doesn’t substitute for good habits.
Check Recent Logins: Head to the security settings to review the devices that have accessed your account. Remove anything that looks strange.
Don’t Log In over Public Wi-Fi: Hackers can eavesdrop on poorly secured networks and grab your login info as you type it in.
Legal Balance on Instagram Security
Any form of unauthorized access to another person’s Instagram, with the intent to harm, exploit, or defraud, is a crime with severe penalties. Conversely, ethical hackers—experts who are granted permission to probe a company’s defenses—play a constructive role in keeping our accounts safe. By exposing and fixing vulnerabilities in a controlled environment, they help Instagram, and similar platforms, block the very methods that malicious actors would eventually apply. Their work is part of the defense that keeps billions of accounts secure, every day.
Security experts comb through instahacking tactics using legitimate software so they can patch slip-ups before bad actors can pounce. Ordinary Insta users, however, still get the strongest protection just by staying alert and thinking before they tap.
Conclusion
Talk around instahacking has surged lately, sparked by the flood of account swaps and worries about Instagram’s safety. From crafty phishing schemes and brute-force guesses to sneaky keyloggers and social-engineering tricks, the methods vary—but the same intel can teach users to outsmart the criminals. Command-line tools like Hydra, John, Wireshark, and Metasploit, when wielded with a duty of care, help lock down the very holes they probe.
The mission isn’t to expose weaknesses for a cheap thrill, it’s to help everyone cultivate a kind of immune system for their devices. Keep security settings tight, practice smart scrolling, and the odds of landing in a hacker’s crosshairs drop sharply.
Hunger for more grounded tips on what’s happening in the tech and threat landscape? Keep scrolling with Hackersking.
SWIFT, the global backbone for secure financial messaging, plays a critical role in enabling fast and reliable cross-border transactions. But as cyber threats grow more advanced, financial institutions must implement robust SWIFT security controls to safeguard their systems and prevent fraud.
The SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) was established to enhance cybersecurity hygiene across its network, helping institutions protect against fraud and cyberattacks. This article explores key security controls within the SWIFT CSP compliance framework and outlines best practices for financial institutions to strengthen their SWIFT security posture.
What is SWIFT CSP?
The SWIFT CSP, launched in 2016, is designed to mitigate cybersecurity risks and enhance the overall security of financial institutions. The program includes the Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), which defines both mandatory and advisory security controls based on industry standards such as NIST, ISO 27001/2, and PCI DSS 4.0. These controls aim to secure financial institutions’ environments, restrict unauthorized access, and ensure timely detection and response to potential threats.
SWIFT CSCF has 32 security controls, in which 25 are mandatory and 7 are advisory controls. The difference between the mandatory controls and advisory controls is that the mandatory controls are considered extremely important, considering they set the baseline security that all users must adhere to, while advisory controls are recommended by SWIFT as best practices but are not strictly enforced.
Here are the three core objectives of SWIFT CSCF:
Secure Your Environment – Implementing controls to protect SWIFT-related systems from external and internal threats.
Know and Limit Access – Ensuring that only authorized personnel have access to critical systems.
Detect and Respond – Monitoring and responding to security incidents in a timely manner.
Below is the list of the 32 security controls with their principles.
1. Restrict Internet Access and Protect Critical Systems from General IT Environment
1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection
1.2 Operating System Privileged Account Control
1.3 Virtualisation or Cloud Platform Protection
1.4 Restriction of Internet Access
1.5 Customer Environment Protection
2. Reduce Attack Surface and Vulnerabilities
2.1 Internal Data Flow Security
2.2 Security Updates
2.3 System Hardening
2.4A Back Office Data Flow Security
2.5A External Transmission Data Protection
2.6 Operator Session Confidentiality and Integrity
2.7 Vulnerability Scanning
2.8 Outsourced Critical Activity Protection
2.9 Transaction Business Controls
2.10 Application Hardening
2.11A RMA Business Controls
3. Physically Secure the Environment
3.1 Physical Security
4. Prevent Compromise of Credentials
4.1 Password Policy
4.2 Multi-Factor Authentication
5. Manage Identities and Separate Privileges
5.1 Logical Access Control
5.2 Token Management
5.3A Staff Screening Process
5.4 Password Repository Protection
6. Detect Anomalous Activity to Systems or Transaction Records
6.1 Malware Protection
6.2 Software Integrity
6.3 Database Integrity
6.4 Logging and Monitoring
6.5A Intrusion Detection
7. Plan for Incident Response and Information Sharing
7.1 Cyber Incident Response Planning
7.2 Security Training and Awareness
7.3A Penetration Testing
7.4A Scenario-based Risk Assessment
Best Practices for Financial Institutions to Enhance SWIFT Security
Being SWIFT CSP compliant can bring many advantages to your organization along with enhanced security controls. To align with SWIFT CSP requirements, you should consider the following best practices:
1. Adopt a Risk-Based Approach
Conduct regular risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities and address them proactively.
Prioritize security measures based on potential impact and threat landscape.
2. Strengthen Access Controls
Enforce the principle of least privilege by restricting access based on roles and responsibilities.
Implement robust authentication mechanisms such as MFA.
Regularly review and update access permissions.
3. Enhance Network Segmentation
Isolate SWIFT-related infrastructure from general IT environments.
Use firewalls and secure VPNs to control and monitor network traffic.
4. Implement Continuous Monitoring and Threat Detection
Deploy Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions for real-time monitoring.
Regularly analyze logs to detect and respond to suspicious activities.
5. Regularly Update and Patch Systems
Apply security updates to all SWIFT-related components to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
Conduct periodic penetration testing to identify and remediate security gaps.
6. Enhance Security Awareness and Training
Train employees on phishing, social engineering, and cybersecurity best practices.
Conduct regular security drills to test incident response readiness.
Importance of Engaging Independent Assessors
To ensure compliance with SWIFT CSP requirements and improve security maturity, financial institutions should engage independent assessors. These experts:
Provide an unbiased evaluation of SWIFT security implementation.
Identify gaps in security controls and recommend improvements.
Assist in compliance reporting and attestation processes.
By working with independent assessors, financial institutions can enhance their security resilience, meet regulatory expectations, and mitigate risks effectively.
Conclusion
SWIFT security is a critical component of financial institutions’ cybersecurity strategy. By implementing the best practices outlined in this article and adhering to SWIFT CSP security controls, you can protect your organization’s infrastructure, prevent fraudulent activities, and build a secure financial ecosystem.
Want to assess your SWIFT compliance or need expert guidance on securing your infrastructure? Fill out our inquiry form today and let our experts assist you in achieving a strong and compliant SWIFT security framework.
The SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) is a security framework developed by SWIFT to improve the cyber security posture of financial institutions connected to its network. It aims to fight against growing cyber threats by providing a structured set of 32 SWIFT security controls that institutions must implement to safeguard their SWIFT related infrastructure.
These controls are grouped under three key objectives: Secure Your Environment, Know and Limit Access, and Detect and Respond. To learn more about the key objectives and principles of the CSP check out this quick guide to SWIFT CSP.
In this article, we will explore the key steps to ensure compliance with SWIFT CSP, common compliance challenges and their solutions, and the consequences of SWIFT CSP non-compliance. So, let’s get started!
Steps for achieving SWIFT CSP compliance
1.Understand the SWIFT CSP framework
Review the SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) through the SWIFT CSP portal to understand all the security requirements there related to secure communication, operations, and cybersecurity.
2.Conduct a self-assessment
Perform gap analysis to assess your current security posture.
Complete the SWIFT CSP compliance questionnaire to check the current alignment with the required controls.
3.Implement security controls
Deploy required cybersecurity measures like multi-factor authentication (MFA), data encryption, and segregation of duties.
Update internal security policies that need to be updated to meet SWIFT CSP standards and set up continuous security monitoring.
4.Engage in SWIFT’s assurance process
If needed, hire a third-party auditor for a formal review and assurance report. Alternatively, complete self-certification to declare compliance.
5.Address gaps and remediate
Implement corrective actions for any identified non-compliance areas.
Test the security controls to ensure they meet SWIFT’s standards.
6.Regular reviews and updates
Continuously monitor and update security measures to stay compliant.
Conduct annual reviews to ensure all security controls are current with SWIFT’s evolving requirements.
7.Document and report compliance
Maintain detailed records of assessments, audits, and actions taken.
Submit required reports to SWIFT, ensuring all documentation is accurate and up to date.
8.Training and Awareness
Provide ongoing training for employees on SWIFT CSP requirements and security best practices.
Develop a culture of security awareness to reduce risks and ensure compliance.
Common challenges and solutions to maintain compliance
1. Adapting to Evolving Security Standards
The Challenge:
SWIFT frequently updates its CSP requirements to keep up with new threats and vulnerabilities in the financial system. For institutions with limited resources or complex IT environments, staying ahead of these changes can feel like an uphill battle.
The Solution:
Assign a dedicated compliance officer or team to monitor SWIFT updates and ensure they’re reflected in your security controls. You can register yourself with the SWIFT Council, which will give you access to restricted materials by SWIFT and also get immediate updates of any changes or challenges. Make it a routine to review new SWIFT CSP guidelines, adapt your processes, and document every change. Most importantly, communicate these updates across the organization so everyone is on the same page.
2. Resource Constraints
The Challenge:
Meeting SWIFT CSP’s security requirements is no small feat. For smaller institutions or those with tight budgets, implementing and maintaining these measures can be a significant strain.
The Solution:
Focus on what matters most, and prioritize critical controls that address the biggest risks. Take advantage of cost-effective solutions like cloud-based security tools or automation to streamline processes. When resources are stretched thin, consider outsourcing non-core compliance tasks to specialized third-party providers. Ensure you are regularly audited (even internally) by a third party to confirm that, with the lean resources, you are still a main team with no gaps.
3. Complexity in Security Infrastructure
The Challenge:
Financial institutions often manage sprawling IT systems with diverse technologies and platforms. This complexity can make it challenging to apply SWIFT CSP controls consistently across the board.
The Solution:
Tackle the challenge step by step. Start with a phased approach, prioritizing high-risk areas first. Focus on core security measures like multi-factor authentication (MFA), encryption, and access management. Regularly test your infrastructure to catch integration issues early and ensure everything is working together smoothly. Since the penalties are high and the risks are also pretty high, it would be of good use to your organisation to interact with your auditors or consultants to confirm that you are on the right track.
4. Employee Awareness and Training
The Challenge:
Security isn’t just IT’s job, every employee has a role to play. But getting everyone, from technical staff to end users, to understand their part in SWIFT CSP compliance can be a daunting task, especially in large organizations.
The Solution:
Invest in tailored, role-based training programs that emphasize SWIFT CSP requirements and security best practices. Reinforce this knowledge with periodic security awareness campaigns, like phishing simulations, to keep employees on their toes. Develop a culture of security where compliance isn’t just a checkbox but a shared organizational value. Ensure that the learnings are fine tuned as per the department and the work expectations from a team instead of a generalised training which covers something as mundane as “What is information security”.
5. Continuous Monitoring and Incident Response
The Challenge:
Monitoring security controls around the clock and responding swiftly to incidents can be overwhelming without the right tools and processes in place.
The Solution:
Adopt automated tools for real-time monitoring and incident detection. These systems can flag suspicious activity immediately, allowing your team to act fast. Streamline your response with automated workflows designed to contain threats quickly. Ensure alerts are configured to be sent to relevant personnel to report on critical time sensitive events. Don’t forget to regularly review and update your incident response plans to align with SWIFT’s evolving requirements.
6. Third-Party Risk Management
The Challenge:
Your security is only as strong as your weakest link, which often includes third-party vendors. Managing the security posture of external partners can be tricky, especially when their standards don’t match yours.
The Solution:
Set clear expectations for vendors by requiring them to comply with SWIFT CSP controls. Conduct regular audits to ensure they’re meeting these standards and include robust security clauses in your contracts. Make security assessments a non-negotiable part of your vendor on boarding process. Ensure that these strict processes are not limited to just the onboarding process but also on an ongoing basis. Also make sure you have the right to audit in all your agreements.
The consequences of non-compliance
Financial Losses: Exposure to losses from breaches and cyberattacks.
Reputational Damage: Loss of client trust and business opportunities.
Exclusion from SWIFT: Disconnection from SWIFT, halting transactions.
Regulatory Penalties: Fines for failing to meet compliance requirements.
Increased Cyberattack Risk: Greater vulnerability to data breaches and ransomware.
Loss of Client Confidence: Erosion of client trust in data protection.
Legal Liabilities: Risk of legal action from non-compliance.
Operational Disruption: Delays, errors, and compromised systems.
Remediation Costs: High expenses for fixing compliance gaps.
Wrapping Up
Maintaining SWIFT CSP compliance is important for financial institutions to protect against cyber threats, ensure operational resilience, and uphold trust within the global financial system. By following SWIFT’s security guidelines and taking proactive measures to resolve compliance issues, organizations can steer clear of serious repercussions like financial losses, reputational damage, and exclusion from the SWIFT network.
Why trust VISTA InfoSec for SWIFT CSP compliance?
VISTA InfoSec brings over decades of expertise in cybersecurity and compliance, offering end-to-end support for cybersecurity and SWIFT CSP Certification. Our team of seasoned professionals and SWIFT CSP assessors understands the complexities of the SWIFT CSP framework and provides tailored solutions to address your unique business needs. Partnering with VISTA InfoSec means leveraging our deep industry knowledge, commitment to excellence, and unwavering focus on securing your organization against evolving cyber threats.
Learn more about the SWIFT Customer Security Programme and the reigning cybersecurity regulations and standards at our official YouTube channel. You may also fill out the ‘Enquire Now’ form for a FREE one-time consultation or contact us at the registered number listed on our website to get started with SWIFT CSP compliance.
The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) provides secure and reliable communication networks for over 11500 connected financial institutions to facilitate cross-border payments and securities transactions.
But as digital thieves and cyberattacks became more sophisticated targeting the financial sector, it led to the rise of cyber security cases which is why SWIFT introduced the SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP), a set of cybersecurity requirements designed to protect the global financial ecosystem.
In today’s article, we will explore what SWIFT CSP is, its key objectives, the compliance checklist, and how VISTA InfoSec can help you with compliance requirements with an all rounder exclusive SWIFT CSP guide.
What is SWIFT CSP, and why it was introduced?
SWIFT CSP is a cybersecurity initiative established to ensure that financial institutions adopt strong data control measures to protect their environment against cyberattacks. It outlines 32 security controls with 25 mandatory controls and 7 advisory controls that financial institutions connected to the SWIFT network must implement to prevent cyber fraud and maintain the integrity of global financial transactions.
The reason why SWIFT took the initiative to introduce the Customer Security Programme (CSP) was due to a series of high-profile cyberattacks in 2016, particularly the Bangladesh Bank heist which revealed significant vulnerabilities within the local security measures of individual institutions.
Attackers exploited weak local security measures at individual institutions to send fraudulent SWIFT messages, resulting in substantial financial losses. These incidents highlighted the need for a unified security standard across all SWIFT users, and so in 2017 it launched the CSP with the following key objectives:
Strengthening Security: Establishing a consistent baseline of security controls to secure SWIFT-related infrastructure.
Detecting and Responding to Threats: Enhancing the ability of institutions to detect anomalies and respond swiftly to cyber incidents.
Promoting Accountability: Encouraging financial institutions to take responsibility for securing their local environments and ensuring compliance through independent SWIFT CSP assessments.
Swift Customer Security Controls Framework | key objectives and principles
Below are the 3 key objectives and 7 principles, as defined in the updated SWIFT CSP framework.
1.Secure Your Environment
Restrict Internet access & segregate critical systems from the general IT environment
Reduce attack surface and vulnerabilities
Physically secure the environment
2.Know and Limit Access
Prevent compromise of credentials
Manage identities and segregate privileges
3.Detect and Respond
Detect anomalous activity in system or transaction records
Plan for incident response and information sharing
SWIFT CSP compliance checklist
1. Governance and Oversight
Establish a cybersecurity governance framework for SWIFT-related environments.
Assign clear accountability for implementing and maintaining SWIFT security controls.
Conduct periodic reviews of security policies and compliance measures.
2. Securing the Local Environment
a) Endpoint Protection:
Ensure all SWIFT-related applications, systems, and interfaces are secured.
Implement strong firewall configurations to prevent unauthorized access.
Regularly patch and update software to address known vulnerabilities.
b) Physical Security:
Restrict physical access to SWIFT-connected infrastructure.
Use surveillance and access controls for server rooms and data centers.
3. Access Control
Implement role-based access controls (RBAC) to limit access to critical systems.
Use multi-factor authentication (MFA) for SWIFT interfaces and applications.
Regularly review and update user access privileges.
Disable unused or unnecessary accounts promptly.
4. Secure Messaging Practices
Encrypt all financial messages transmitted over the SWIFT network.
Monitor messaging flows to detect any anomalies or unauthorized activities.
5. Monitoring and Threat Detection
Deploy tools for continuous monitoring of SWIFT-related environments.
Implement anomaly detection systems to identify unusual patterns in transactions or system behavior.
Conduct regular vulnerability scans and penetration tests.
6.Incident Management
Develop and maintain an Incident Response Plan (IRP) specific to SWIFT environments.
Test the IRP periodically to ensure its effectiveness in mitigating cyber incidents.
Report security incidents to SWIFT promptly, as per the CSP guidelines.
7. Training and Awareness
Conduct regular cybersecurity training for employees and stakeholders.
Focus on phishing awareness, secure usage of SWIFT systems, and compliance with CSP requirements.
8.Annual Attestation
Complete and submit the annual compliance attestation between July and December of each year through the SWIFT KYC Security Attestation application.
Include evidence of control implementation and details of any compensatory measures.
Share attestation results with counterparties as required.
How VISTA InfoSec can assist with SWIFT CSP Compliance?
VISTA InfoSec is recognized with SWIFT as an authorised auditing organisation. As a CREST-certified organization, VISTA InfoSec’s SWIFT CSP assessors bring extensive expertise in cybersecurity and compliance frameworks. Our team provides end-to-end support, starting with a comprehensive gap assessment to evaluate your current security posture against the requirements of the SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF).
Based on this analysis, we deliver actionable insights to address compliance gaps, implement mandatory and advisory controls, and strengthen your overall cybersecurity infrastructure. Our services are designed to ensure a seamless compliance journey, including policy reviews, risk-based control implementation, and ongoing guidance for annual attestations.
We are also offering ‘AuditFusion360’ a one-time audit service for all your compliance needs, including SWIFT CSP, PCI DSS, SOC 2, GDPR, ISO 27001, and more. This unique approach streamlines the compliance process, reduces redundancies, and saves time and resources by addressing multiple frameworks in a single engagement. So, partner with VISTA InfoSec to simplify your compliance efforts and fortify your cybersecurity posture while ensuring adherence to SWIFT CSP requirements.
With over two decades of experience in the cyber security industry, I specialize in advising organizations on how to optimize their financial investments through the design of effective and cost-efficient cyber security strategies. Since the year 2000, I’ve had the privilege of collaborating with various channels and enterprises across the Latin American region, serving in multiple roles ranging from Support Engineer to Country Manager. This extensive background has afforded me a unique perspective on the evolving threat landscape and the shifting needs of businesses in the digital world.
The dynamism of technological advancements has transformed cyber security demands, necessitating more proactive approaches to anticipate and prevent threats before they can impact an organization. Understanding this ever-changing landscape is crucial for adapting to emerging security challenges.
In my current role as the Channel Engineering Manager for LATAM at Check Point, I also serve as part of the Cybersecurity Evangelist team under the office of our CTO. I am focused on merging technical skills with strategic decision-making, encouraging organizations to concentrate on growing their business while we ensure security.
The Cyber Security Mesh framework can safeguard businesses from unwieldy and next-generation cyber threats. In this interview, Check Point Security Engineering Manager Angel Salazar Velasquez discusses exactly how that works. Get incredible insights that you didn’t even realize that you were missing. Read through this power-house interview and add another dimension to your organization’s security strategy!
Would you like to provide an overview of the Cyber Security Mesh framework and its significance?
The Cyber Security Mesh framework represents a revolutionary approach to addressing cyber security challenges in increasingly complex and decentralized network environments. Unlike traditional security models that focus on establishing a fixed ‘perimeter’ around an organization’s resources, the Mesh framework places security controls closer to the data, devices, and users requiring protection. This allows for greater flexibility and customization, more effectively adapting to specific security and risk management needs.
For CISOs, adopting the Cyber Security Mesh framework means a substantial improvement in risk management capabilities. It enables more precise allocation of security resources and offers a level of resilience that is difficult to achieve with more traditional approaches. In summary, the Mesh framework provides an agile and scalable structure for addressing emerging threats and adapting to rapid changes in the business and technology environment.
How does the Cyber Security Mesh framework differ from traditional cyber security approaches?
Traditionally, organizations have adopted multiple security solutions from various providers in the hope of building comprehensive defense. The result, however, is a highly fragmented security environment that can lead to a lack of visibility and complex risk management. For CISOs, this situation presents a massive challenge because emerging threats often exploit the gaps between these disparate solutions.
The Cyber Security Mesh framework directly addresses this issue. It is an architecture that allows for better interoperability and visibility by orchestrating different security solutions into a single framework. This not only improves the effectiveness in mitigating threats but also enables more coherent, data-driven risk management. For CISOs, this represents a radical shift, allowing for a more proactive and adaptive approach to cyber security strategy.
Could you talk about the key principles that underly Cyber Security Mesh frameworks and architecture?
Understanding the underlying principles of Cyber Security Mesh is crucial for evaluating its impact on risk management. First, we have the principle of ‘Controlled Decentralization,’ which allows organizations to maintain control over their security policies while distributing implementation and enforcement across multiple security nodes. This facilitates agility without compromising security integrity.
Secondly, there’s the concept of ‘Unified Visibility.’ In an environment where each security solution provides its own set of data and alerts, unifying this information into a single coherent ‘truth’ is invaluable. The Mesh framework allows for this consolidation, ensuring that risk-related decision-making is based on complete and contextual information. These principles, among others, combine to provide a security posture that is much more resilient and adaptable to the changing needs of the threat landscape.
How does the Cyber Security Mesh framework align with or complement Zero Trust?
The convergence of Cyber Security Mesh and the Zero Trust model is a synergy worth exploring. Zero Trust is based on the principle of ‘never trust, always verify,’ meaning that no user or device is granted default access to the network, regardless of its location. Cyber Security Mesh complements this by decentralizing security controls. Instead of having a monolithic security perimeter, controls are applied closer to the resource or user, allowing for more granular and adaptive policies.
This combination enables a much more dynamic approach to mitigating risks. Imagine a scenario where a device is deemed compromised. In an environment that employs both Mesh and Zero Trust, this device would lose its access not only at a global network level but also to specific resources, thereby minimizing the impact of a potential security incident. These additional layers of control and visibility strengthen the organization’s overall security posture, enabling more informed and proactive risk management.
How does the Cyber Security Mesh framework address the need for seamless integration across diverse technologies and platforms?
The Cyber Security Mesh framework is especially relevant today, as it addresses a critical need for seamless integration across various technologies and platforms. In doing so, it achieves Comprehensive security coverage, covering all potential attack vectors, from endpoints to the cloud. This approach also aims for Consolidation, as it integrates multiple security solutions into a single operational framework, simplifying management and improving operational efficiency.
Furthermore, the mesh architecture promotes Collaboration among different security solutions and products. This enables a quick and effective response to any threat, facilitated by real-time threat intelligence that can be rapidly shared among multiple systems. At the end of the day, it’s about optimizing security investment while facing key business challenges, such as breach prevention and secure digital transformation.
Can you discuss the role of AI and Machine Learning within the Cyber Security Mesh framework/architecture?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning play a crucial role in the Cyber Security Mesh ecosystem. These technologies enable more effective and adaptive monitoring, while providing rapid responses to emerging threats. By leveraging AI, more effective prevention can be achieved, elevating the framework’s capabilities to detect and counter vulnerabilities in real-time.
From an operational standpoint, AI and machine learning add a level of automation that not only improves efficiency but also minimizes the need for manual intervention in routine security tasks. In an environment where risks are constantly evolving, this agility and ability to quickly adapt to new threats are invaluable. These technologies enable coordinated and swift action, enhancing the effectiveness of the Cyber Security Mesh.
What are some of the challenges or difficulties that organizations may see when trying to implement Mesh?
The implementation of a Cyber Security Mesh framework is not without challenges. One of the most notable obstacles is the inherent complexity of this mesh architecture, which can hinder effective security management. Another significant challenge is the technological and knowledge gap that often arises in fragmented security environments. Added to these is the operational cost of integrating and maintaining multiple security solutions in an increasingly diverse and dynamic ecosystem.
However, many of these challenges can be mitigated if robust technology offering centralized management is in place. This approach reduces complexity and closes the gaps, allowing for more efficient and automated operation. Additionally, a centralized system can offer continuous learning as it integrates intelligence from various points into a single platform. In summary, centralized security management and intelligence can be the answer to many of the challenges that CISOs face when implementing the Cyber Security Mesh.
How does the Cyber Security Mesh Framework/Architecture impact the role of traditional security measures, like firewalls and IPS?
Cyber Security Mesh has a significant impact on traditional security measures like firewalls and IPS. In the traditional paradigm, these technologies act as gatekeepers at the entry and exit points of the network. However, with the mesh approach, security is distributed and more closely aligned with the fluid nature of today’s digital environment, where perimeters have ceased to be fixed.
Far from making them obsolete, the Cyber Security Mesh framework allows firewalls and IPS to transform and become more effective. They become components of a broader and more dynamic security strategy, where their intelligence and capabilities are enhanced within the context of a more flexible architecture. This translates into improved visibility, responsiveness, and adaptability to new types of threats. In other words, traditional security measures are not eliminated, but integrated and optimized in a more versatile and robust security ecosystem.
Can you describe real-world examples that show the use/success of the Cyber Security Mesh Architecture?
Absolutely! In a company that had adopted a Cyber Security Mesh architecture, a sophisticated multi-vector attack was detected targeting its employees through various channels: corporate email, Teams, and WhatsApp. The attack included a malicious file that exploited a zero-day vulnerability. The first line of defense, ‘Harmony Email and Collaboration,’ intercepted the file in the corporate email and identified it as dangerous by leveraging its Sandboxing technology and updated the information in its real-time threat intelligence cloud.
When the same malicious file tried to be delivered through Microsoft Teams, the company was already one step ahead. The security architecture implemented also extends to collaboration platforms, so the file was immediately blocked before it could cause harm. Almost simultaneously, another employee received an attack attempt through WhatsApp, which was neutralized by the mobile device security solution, aligned with the same threat intelligence cloud.
This comprehensive and coordinated security strategy demonstrates the strength and effectiveness of the Cyber Security Mesh approach, which allows companies to always be one step ahead, even when facing complex and sophisticated multi-vector attacks. The architecture allows different security solutions to collaborate in real-time, offering effective defense against emerging and constantly evolving threats.
The result is solid security that blocks multiple potential entry points before they can be exploited, thus minimizing risk and allowing the company to continue its operations without interruption. This case exemplifies the potential of a well-implemented and consolidated security strategy, capable of addressing the most modern and complex threats.
Is there anything else that you would like to share with the CyberTalk.org audience?
To conclude, the Cyber Security Mesh approach aligns well with the three key business challenges that every CISO faces:
Breach and Data Leak Prevention: The Cyber Security Mesh framework is particularly strong in offering an additional layer of protection, enabling effective prevention against emerging threats and data breaches. This aligns perfectly with our first ‘C’ of being Comprehensive, ensuring security across all attack vectors.
Secure Digital and Cloud Transformation: The flexibility and scalability of the Mesh framework make it ideal for organizations in the process of digital transformation and cloud migration. Here comes our second ‘C’, which is Consolidation. We offer a consolidated architecture that unifies multiple products and technologies, from the network to the cloud, thereby optimizing operational efficiency and making digital transformation more secure.
Security Investment Optimization: Finally, the operational efficiency achieved through a Mesh architecture helps to optimize the security investment. This brings us to our third ‘C’ of Collaboration. The intelligence shared among control points, powered by our ThreatCloud intelligence cloud, enables quick and effective preventive action, maximizing the return on security investment.
In summary, Cyber Security Mesh is not just a technological solution, but a strategic framework that strengthens any CISO’s stance against current business challenges. It ideally complements our vision and the three C’s of Check Point, offering an unbeatable value proposition for truly effective security.
REST-Attacker is an automatedpenetration testing framework for APIs following the REST architecture style. The tool's focus is on streamlining the analysis of generic REST API implementations by completely automating the testing process - including test generation, access control handling, and report generation - with minimal configuration effort. Additionally, REST-Attacker is designed to be flexible and extensible with support for both large-scale testing and fine-grained analysis.
You also need to install the following packages with pip:
python3 -m pip install -r requirements.txt
Quickstart
Here you can find a quick rundown of the most common and useful commands. You can find more information on each command and other about available configuration options in our usage guides.
Get the list of supported test cases:
python3 -m rest_attacker --list
Basic test run (with load-time test case generation):
Test run with only selected test cases (only generates test cases for test cases scopes.TestTokenRequestScopeOmit and resources.FindSecurityParameters):
Usage guides and configuration format documentation can be found in the documentation subfolders.
Troubleshooting
For fixes/mitigations for known problems with the tool, see the troubleshooting docs or the Issues section.
Contributing
Contributions of all kinds are appreciated! If you found a bug or want to make a suggestion or feature request, feel free to create a new issue in the issue tracker. You can also submit fixes or code ammendments via a pull request.
Unfortunately, we can be very busy sometimes, so it may take a while before we respond to comments in this repository.
License
This project is licensed under GNU LGPLv3 or later (LGPL3+). See COPYING for the full license text and CONTRIBUTORS.md for the list of authors.
REST-Attacker is an automatedpenetration testing framework for APIs following the REST architecture style. The tool's focus is on streamlining the analysis of generic REST API implementations by completely automating the testing process - including test generation, access control handling, and report generation - with minimal configuration effort. Additionally, REST-Attacker is designed to be flexible and extensible with support for both large-scale testing and fine-grained analysis.
You also need to install the following packages with pip:
python3 -m pip install -r requirements.txt
Quickstart
Here you can find a quick rundown of the most common and useful commands. You can find more information on each command and other about available configuration options in our usage guides.
Get the list of supported test cases:
python3 -m rest_attacker --list
Basic test run (with load-time test case generation):
Test run with only selected test cases (only generates test cases for test cases scopes.TestTokenRequestScopeOmit and resources.FindSecurityParameters):
Usage guides and configuration format documentation can be found in the documentation subfolders.
Troubleshooting
For fixes/mitigations for known problems with the tool, see the troubleshooting docs or the Issues section.
Contributing
Contributions of all kinds are appreciated! If you found a bug or want to make a suggestion or feature request, feel free to create a new issue in the issue tracker. You can also submit fixes or code ammendments via a pull request.
Unfortunately, we can be very busy sometimes, so it may take a while before we respond to comments in this repository.
License
This project is licensed under GNU LGPLv3 or later (LGPL3+). See COPYING for the full license text and CONTRIBUTORS.md for the list of authors.
Login
